Dec 192012
 
TumblrShare

An astonishing tweet flashed by me just now which suggested that Iain Duncan Smith is telling his activists the government plans to control how benefit recipients spend their money.  If this is true, and I have heard other stories recently of smartcards various which might be introduced to achieve exactly that, it certainly begs a sequence of very serious questions: first, and most importantly, how on earth a political party such as the Conservatives have become a group of morality-peddling nannies, capable of far outdoing anything New Labour was ever accused of having got up to.

And here I am, trying to understand these behaviours.  And you know what, I think I’ve worked out why it’s all happening.  The businesspeople-cum-politicians who have been ruling us for years, who see politics as an extension of effective business practice rather than – this being my understanding – a proactive mediation between the interests of free-market-loving consumers on the one hand and the monopolistic tendencies of corporate capitalism on the other, have – in some surreptitious, unconscious and/or subliminal way – decided it’s time not only to make it easier to be a corporation but also to make it more difficult to be a person.

It’s almost as if the psychology is working in the following way: after decades of constrictions, restrictions and legal governance imposed from up on high, of the power of the consumer as protected by the social-democratic states of yore, these businesspeople-cum-politicians are beginning to realise it’s now going to be possible to make people in the image of their blessedly oppressed companies of the past.

It’s almost as if they’re saying it’s your turn as a citizen, as an ordinary person, as a voter and end-user, as a consumer and worker, to feel as regulated, tracked, persecuted and chased as we, your grand providers, have experienced for so many years.

Whatever the reason, it’s true that the sliders are now being pushed in opposite directions: deregulation of corporate agencies, their lobbyists and their sponsored accompanies a simultaneous pattern of increasing regulation around flesh-and-blood figures.

We may wonder if under Coalition Britain it is now easier to be a corporation than a person.

But the question which surely should occupy us is why this is going to be the case.

And in my meandering, disbelieving and indirectly confused way, I finally think this is simply a matter of cruel and casual vengeance.

They do it because they can.

They do it because it’s time.

They do it because the history books have shown that people who have so very much to lose are going to wait until it’s too late in the foolish belief they might not lose it all.

These businesspeople-cum-politicians are right in one thing they say, mind: we are soft, too comfortable and dependent on a centralised authority.

But they are wrong when they argue this authority is the government.

In reality, we are soft, too comfortable and dependent on the companies these businesspeople-cum-politicians have made in their ever-so-autocratic images.

If we are indeed living in a state of sofa-sitting layabouts, it is only because our corporations have made us so: have made us evermore dependent on the logos, messages, narratives and products that make up their cocooning and loyalty-generating 21st century environments.  It is in our roles as consumers, end-users, readers and viewers that we have become hollowed out and empty.

As citizens, as voters, as democrats, however … well, I still believe there is a thirst for real engagement.  But that opportunity is slowly and severely being excised from our futures – even as we speak.  In this vengeance that is our leaders’, time for the rest of us is practically up.

Not the End of the World exactly – but the end of the world as we knew and genuinely loved it.

That’s what the Mayans were really predicting, you know.

The retaking and destruction of complex and thoughtful societies by idiots such as Cameron & Co.

Now that’s what should really terrify us, in my opinion.  That’s the really terrifying prospect now facing us.


TumblrShare
Jan 172012
 
TumblrShare

Yesterday, I wondered the following:

[...] I really wouldn’t be surprised if the often worthy and positive cuckoo that was the New Labour tendency mightn’t end up destroying the heart and soul of the Tory Party over the next two governments in much the same way as it has already manifestly managed to do to what used to be Labour, its class movement and its society-loving instincts.

The truth of the matter is that our “top-flight” politicians – the ones who lead parties and get to the top of greasy poles in a multitude of hierarchies (organisations, institutions and committees various) -  are generally, almost without exception in fact, intellectual hypocrites.  The meme that currently dominates our Western societies is that of choice: we are no longer patients, parents, students or victims of crime but end-user consumers of services the state provides.  And so it is that our “top-flight” politicians – those who run our lives, those who plan how to win us over despite ourselves – structure our needs in terms of socioeconomic McMenus.

Except, of course, in terms of the political parties they lead.  There, it would seem, curiously enough, we have blessed little choice at all.

Another example of do what I say and not what I do:

The Labour party’s chief union backer has accused Ed Miliband of undermining his own leadership, disenfranchising the party’s core support and leaving the country with all three main parties bent on using austerity to save capitalism.

In an article in the Guardian, the Unite general secretary, Len McCluskey, launches a strident attack on Miliband and Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, prompted by the party leadership’s weekend decision to endorse a continuation of the government’s public-sector pay freeze.

He suggests that their stance “challenges the whole course Ed Miliband has set for the party, and perhaps his leadership itself”. He also claims Blairites will seek to capitalise on their policy coup and come for Miliband himself, a path he says “will lead to the destruction of the Labour party as constituted and certain election defeat”. [...]

I hate being manipulated by clever political bods such as these.  I really do.  And I do seriously wonder if McCluskey isn’t right in what he says when he suggests that Blairites might seek to remake Labour in their very own image once again.

In fact, I have to say it wouldn’t surprise me if over the next two governments we didn’t see a new centrist political party in Britain: based around the most Blairite of triangulations; cementing together the UK out of an artificial fear of the unknown; centralising even more the power bases around strong-arm tactics in Westminster, with a trivial agenda of petty localism as a sop to the decentralisers amongst us … all this and more would simply confirm that for Blairites Labour was merely a conditional stepping-stone to “better” things.

Never a certain bet nor fundamentally organic relationship of the altruistic.

A shaky foundation, in fact, to be defec(a)ted on when necessary.

What say you?


TumblrShare
Jan 172010
 
TumblrShare

An interesting question.  They probably asked a similar question when universal schooling was suggested – and pooh-poohed the very idea.  More here on something that is very dear to my heart – and pretty pertinent to the current debate on effective left-wing blogging highlighted in my previous post.  In order to make real change happen you have to rethink from the ground up.  Anything else is just a copy.  And it’s in the rethinking we really make the difference.

Why we don’t make a difference more often is probably because, more often, we don’t rethink from the ground up – mainly because we are unaware of the possibilities that other areas of knowledge and practice offer up to us.  All of us learning some of the principles of coding would, if nothing else, help to enlighten a useful majority as to what was potentially possible and what was essentially impractical.  A dialogue between true developers and end-user/developers could then be more productive and constructive.

I like the idea – but then I did have the opportunity some years ago to fight on its behalf to little avail, perhaps because I did so from rank ignorance of some of the true issues at the heart of developing.  The idea encapsulated in the post linked to above would, however, help deal with some of these challenges most usefully.

Worth considering.

(Via Tom Watson’s RT on Twitter.)


TumblrShare
Check Our FeedVisit Us On TwitterVisit Us On Facebook